Originally posted by VertigoGal indie is the most annoying term since progressive.

But when you add snob it becomes oh so delightful.

Besides, for me indie is merely a statement of fact -- a band or musician is unsigned and putting out their own work, or is signed to a truly independent label (preferable with independent distribution as well).

indie might refer to an unsigned band, but following that logic there should be another lump term for all signed bands...ooh, maybe we should start defining artists by which record company they're signed to!

good music is good music. in some cases, bad music is good music (candy )

Originally posted by VertigoGal lol, i dont know why i edited my original post...

indie might refer to an unsigned band, but following that logic there should be another lump term for all signed bands...ooh, maybe we should start defining artists by which record company they're signed to!

good music is good music. in some cases, bad music is good music (candy )

It's not just unsigned...it's unsigned or signed to an independent label. And there is a term for bands signed to major labels -- mainstream.

It's not just unsigned...it's unsigned or signed to an independent label. And there is a term for bands signed to major labels -- mainstream.

yeah but those terms have very little to do with the music. many of the bands i like are signed to major labels, but if someone asked me what type of music i listen to,i wouldnt say "mainstream music."

yeah but those terms have very little to do with the music. many of the bands i like are signed to major labels, but if someone asked me what type of music i listen to,i wouldnt say "mainstream music."

Indie has nothing to do with the sound of the music either. Indie means independent. There are people who give it other meanings, but they are wrong. So there.

I think TheRooster noted in one of his posts that there can be indie rock, indie country, indie jazz, indie rap...certainly those aren't all going to sound alike.

I don't like all independent music -- some just doesn't appeal to me, and some is utterly dreadful. And I don't hate all mainstream music either. However, the vast majority of music I like enough to actually purchase is truly indie (independent label or no label). If it makes you feel any better I did buy three Wilco cds this year (on 2 on Nonesuch; 1 on Reprise -- both are subsidiaries of Warner Brothers), so I don't totally boycott the "biggies."

And sometimes I just like to tease the "indie is bad, bad, bad" guys here.

Originally posted by Moonlit_Angel at the same time, we need the kinds of artists like the Maroon 5s and them just to let loose and have some fun and take a break from the serious side of life for a while.

But there are plenty of indie (or not-so-mainstream) artists who record joyful, life-affirming music, and aren't serious and dead set in their ways. And their stuff to me is better than so many of these hacks the record companies funnel to us.

I do agree with you that we need Maroon 5 and your Kelly Clarksons and Clay Aikens, but not for the same reason you have stated.

We need them to bring home the bacon to the record companies so they can continue to allow less (financially) successful artists to grow and develop.

Apart from that, I don't care what people elect to listen to. They can like whomever as much as I'm entitled to think their taste is hideous. Whatever floats your boat.

yeah, the idea that indie musicians are all ultra serious brooders is wrong. In fact, a great many of them are the opposite. Especially as of late with the rise in freak folk and wacky hipsters like Animal Collective, Bunky, Steven Malkmus, and the Flaming Lips

than you have the very joyful pop stylings of The Shins and A.C. Newman

actually, there's a hell of a lot of more people having fun in the independant scene than the mainstream.

Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...

Posts: 19,268

Local Time: 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by anitram But there are plenty of indie (or not-so-mainstream) artists who record joyful, life-affirming music, and aren't serious and dead set in their ways. And their stuff to me is better than so many of these hacks the record companies funnel to us.

Quite true. Didn't mean to make it sound like they don't sing about that stuff, as I certainly know many can and do sing about that stuff. I guess what I meant to say earlier and wasn't able to fully get out, as I had to hurry my response, is that sure the mainstream pop stuff isn't exactly brain food, no, but the teenybopper pop stuff was never really something I'd expect lyrical/musical brilliance from to begin with, so I just take it as it is, and if I happen to find it fun, I don't see how that can be a bad thing.

Quote:

Originally posted by anitramI do agree with you that we need Maroon 5 and your Kelly Clarksons and Clay Aikens, but not for the same reason you have stated.

We need them to bring home the bacon to the record companies so they can continue to allow less (financially) successful artists to grow and develop.

Makes sense.

Quote:

Originally posted by anitramApart from that, I don't care what people elect to listen to. They can like whomever as much as I'm entitled to think their taste is hideous. Whatever floats your boat.

Exactly. I may make a good-natured joke here and there about an artist someone enjoys that I don't, or I may voice my personal dislike of said artist, but at the end of the day, if their music makes somebody happy, that's all that really matters to me. I just don't like the idea of thinking less of someone because of the music they listen to, is all. Maybe it's 'cause I was once listening to that kind of thing myself on a regular basis and got much flak for it and found it a bit annoying after a while. I dunno.

I know that. I was just trying to say that she does listen to artists with deeper meaning to their lyrics, is all...And there's other artists she likes more than a couple of songs from that have deeper lyrics, too.

And I'm just wondering how exactly you know that about those who listen to that kind of music...There's adults here who like some of the pop artists along the lines of Justin Timberlake and them, and yet they still listen to a ton of the kinds of artists you enjoy, and still fully appreciate that stuff, too. How do you explain that?

And while I do understand what you're getting at with the formulaic aspect of it all, at the same time, while songs that deal with stuff that matters are definitely great and worth having around, at the same time, we need the kinds of artists like the Maroon 5s and them just to let loose and have some fun and take a break from the serious side of life for a while. There needs to be a balance of both-you shouldn't just ignore any music with a message, nor should you just ignore any music that doesn't have one.

Angela

I think you are misunderstanding my language. When I say a song has deeper meaning or meaning period, I'm not just referring to lyrics. I'm referring to the soul of a song. Meaningful songs, songs with a spirit and soul, can be fun and carefree. I love stuff like that, its very difficult to write a happy song both lyrically and musically. However the artists like Destiny's Child and the American Idol crowd create songs without a soul. Literally devoid of any merit. That is my problem with them and why I don't want any of my bands to get popular less they go down that route which unfortunately many have.

You may know people who like both Marroon 5 type candy music and other indie music and you may know people that can understand and full appreciate good music, however I have never met a person who can truly appreciate a My Bloody Valentine song and like Justin Timberlake. All the people I have met in my life and there have been many I have never met anyone like that. That is why I say what I do.